THE  RAILROAD  QUESTION. 


SPEECH 


HOIST.  JOHN  J.  BELL 

REPRESENTATIVE  FROM  EXETER, 


IN  THE 


House  of  Representatives  in  favor  of-Ithe 

Hazen  SBill, 


SEPTEMBER  21 ,  1887. 


Concarb, 


PRINTED  BY  THE  REPUBLICAN  PRESS  ASSOCIATION. 


1  887. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/railroadquestionOObell 


SPEECH. 


Mr.  Speaker  and  Gentlemen  of  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives  : 

It  has  been  with  no  ordinary  feelings  of  embarassment  that  I 
have  come  to  the  discussion  of  the  measures  with  regard  to 
railroad  legislation  that  are  now  before  the  house.  For  I  as¬ 
sume  that,  although  this  technically  is  a  motion  to  postpone  the 
consideration  of  the  Hazen  bill,  as  all  who  have  spoken  before 
me  seem  to  have  done,  the  whole  question  contained  in  both  of 
these  bills  is  the  question  really  before  the  house  ;  that  they  are 
so  intimately  connected  that  they  must  be  discussed  together 
as  one.  As  I  said,  I  have  been  greatly  embarrassed  in  ap¬ 
proaching  the  discussion  of  this  question,  because  of  my 
somewhat  intimate  relations  with  both  the  parties  here, — 
relations  that  have  been  mutually  friendly,  so  far  as  I  know. 
The  connection  with  diverse  interests,  arising  from  the  fact  that 
a  portion  of  my  little  property  is  invested  in  many  of  these  rail¬ 
roads, — from  my  policy  of  so  dividing  my  means  that  whatever 
may  happen  all  may  not  go  at  once, — divides  my  interests,  and 
feelings,  and  wishes.  I  differ  therefore  from  many  gentlemen 
who  have  said  that  they  had  no  pecuniary  interest  in  railroads. 
I  have,  but  interests  so  balanced,  that  I  believe — and  any  man 

who  knows  my  situation  in  that  matter  will  understand — they 
*.  • 

cannot  influence  my  action  here  in  any  way.  But  still,  the 
relations  of  friendship  that  I  have  sustained  toward  all  these 
gentlemen  are  such  that  they  have  produced  in  me  a  great 
deal  of  embarrassment  in  determining  what  should  be  my 
action  in  this  matter. 


4 


I  have  certain  views  of  mv  own,  in  which  while  I  feel  assured 
that  there  is  a  minority,  probably,  but  certainly,  as  I  believe,  a 
constantly  increasing  minority,  who  agree  with  me  in  the  mat¬ 
ter,  yet  still  I  know  that  to  the  managers  of  railroads  those 
views  are  not  agreeable.  I  am  a  believer  in  the  system  of  state 
management  of  all  its  highways,  including  turnpikes,  toll- 
bridges,  and  railroads.  I  know  that  is  not  the  belief  gener¬ 
ally  of  the  people  of  this  country,  but  I  believe  that  the  time 
will  soon  come  when  a  majority  of  the  people  of  this  country 
will  see  the  necessity  of  it,  as  the  people  in  Europe  are  seeing  it 
now.  The  state  management  of  railroads  began  in  Switzer¬ 
land,  and  extended  to  Belgium.  Its  working  so  far  has  been 
so  successful  and  satisfactory  in  both  of  those  countries,  that 
Germany  and  France  are  rapidly  adopting  it.  ItaW  has  almost 
succeeded  in  adopting  it,  and  the  time  is  but  very  shortly  dis¬ 
tant  when  throughout  Europe  no  other  than  governmental  man¬ 
agement  of  railroads  will  exist.  And  I  believe  we  shall  find 
that  the  same  necessities  will  require  of  us  that  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  all  our  highways  shall  be  in  the  hands  of  the  state. 

I  entertain  fears  of  the  consolidation  of  great  moneyed  cor¬ 
porations  :  not  as  to  what  they  may  do  in  a  business  point  of  view, 
but  I  fear  their  political  power.  I  do  not  fear  for  their  influ¬ 
ence  upon  the  business  interests  of  the  community.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  those  business  interests  will  be  carefully  attended  to, 
no  matter  what  may  be  the  consolidations  that  may  take  place  ; 
but  I  do  fear  consolidated  power.  As  I  look  on,  I  can  see,  it 
seems  to  me,  that  the  only  thing  which  will  limit  this  political 
power  of  consolidated  railroads  is  public  opinion.  We  may 
exercise  a  public  opiuion  here  that  will  have  a  power  and  an 
influence  even  upon  these  great  corporations.  Within  the  state, 
and  where  that  power  can  be  exercised  upon  them,  it  will  miti¬ 
gate,  if  it  does  not  entirely  remove,  the  difficulties  that  I  appre¬ 
hend.  But  I  fear,  in  the  present  condition  of  things  in  New 
Hampshire,  a  power  that  cannot  be  regulated  by  public  opinion 
here.  I  see  that  the  English  government,  through  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  has  been  for  political  reasons 
extending  a  railroad  across  the  continent,  shorter  in  length  than 
any  of  the  roads  that  cross  the  continent  in  this  country,  all 
under  one  management,  with  more  feasible  grades  and  less 


5 


heights  to  pass  over,  and  which  has  for  the  transaction  of  the 
transcontinental  business  certain  very  great  advantages.  I  see 
that  corporation,  with  its  ramifications  in  the  way  of  steamboat 
lines,  being  continually  increased,  upon  both  the  Pacific  and  the 
Atlantic  oceans,  and  getting  to  be  a  power  that  is  almost  equal  to 
that  of  any  of  the  governments  of  the  world  themselves.  I  see 
the  necessity  that  that  road  has  for  an  Atlantic  terminus.  Mon¬ 
treal  is  blocked  for  six  months  in  the  year  by  ice.  Where  shall 
it  find  an  Atlantic  terminus  in  which  the  business  can  be  con¬ 
ducted?  I  can  see  but  one  port  where  that  business  can  be 
done,  and  that  is  the  port  of  Boston  ;  and  it  seems  to  me  an  ab¬ 
solute  necessity  to  the  position  of  the  Canadian  Pacific  Railroad 
that  they  should  have  a  communication  with  Boston.  They  are 
building,  I  know,  a  road  across  the  state  of  Maine,  building  it  in 
the  hope  of  carrying  the  trade  to  Halifax.  I  know  that  the  city  of 
Portland  is  hoping  that  it  may  get  a  portion  of  it ;  and  even  poor 
deserted  Wiscasset  is  trying  to-day  to  see  if  it  cannot  secure 
to  its  magnificent  harbor  a  portion  of  the  business  ; — but  the 
same  difficulty  that  applies  to  Wiscasset  will  apply  to  Portland 
and  Halifax,  and  that  is,  that  there  is  not  sufficient  business 
there  to  furnish  the  necessary  return  cargoes  for  the  grain  and 
provisions  and  other  things  that  are  to  be  brought  by  the  Cana¬ 
dian  Pacific  road  and  sent  across  the  Atlantic.  The  trade  can¬ 
not  properly  be  done  unless  there  are  return  cargoes,  and  those 
ships  come  back  to  a  port  wThich  has  a  business  sufficient  to  pro¬ 
duce  those  return  cargoes  ;  and  that  port,  and  the  only  one 
which  the  Canadian  Pacific  can  reach,  is  the  port  of  Boston. 
It  is,  in  my  judgment,  a  matter  of  absolute  necessity  to  the 
Canadian  Pacific  that  they  should  own  the  line  of  road  that  comes 
down  through  the  Merrimack  valley,  and  I  have  been  looking 
now  for  years  while  that  road  has  been  building  to  the  time 
when  they  were  to  come.  I  have  been  hoping,  hoping  some¬ 
times  against  hope,  that  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  would 
be  so  far  aroused  to  their  position  that  some  sufficient  obstacles 
would  be  put  in  the  way  of  their  obtaining  that  control  as 
against  the  people  of  New  Hampshire. 

Now,  I  mav  be  all  wrong.  I  mav  be  mistaken  in  mv  fears  in 
regard  to  this  matter,  but  they  are  to  me  serious  and  dangerous 
facts.  Now  I  look  to  see  what  can  be  done.  I  can  see  no  way 


6 


except  in  the  state  control  of  these  roads  ;  and  whether  the 
Canadian  Pacific  obtain  the  control  of  these  roads  or  not,  I 
know  that  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  has  the  power,  by  its 
right  of  eminent  domain,  to  take  those  roads,  even  from  the 
Canadian  Pacific  or  anybody  else,  and  that  it  must  eventually 
do  so.  But  meanwhile  I  fear  this  great  railway.  I  look  at 
the  various  provisions  that  are  proposed  as  means  of  securing 
us  safety  against  them.  I  find,  in  both  the  bills  that  are  now 
before  the  house,  that  there  are  provisions  that  foreign  corpora¬ 
tions, — meaning  by  that  the  Canadian  Pacific  and  the  Grand 
Trunk, — shall  not  lease  railroads  in  New  Hampshire.  I  know 
that  the  Canadian  Pacific  charter  provides  that  they  shall  own  no 
railroads  in  New  Hampshire,  and  therefore  that  we  have  got  the 
provisions  of  the  laws  of  this  state  and  of  Canada  both  against  it ; 
but  I  remember  how  for  years  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence  were 
run.  It  seeming  that  the  short  leases,  which  alone  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire  permitted  them  to  exist  under,  were  not  such  a& 
were  necessary  for  the  conduct  of  the  business  which  the  Con¬ 
cord  and  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence  railroads  desired  to  do, 
they  entered  nearly  thirty  years  ago,  more  or  less — I  cannot  tell 
the  exact  time — into  an  agreement ;  not  a  lease,  as  they  espec¬ 
ially  declared  it  to  be,  and  such  it  really  was  not,  but  a  busi¬ 
ness  agreement  they  called  it ;  practically,  it  was  a  partnership 
between  the  Concord  road  and  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence 
road.  Perhaps  in  law  it  might  not  have  been  held  to  be  just 
that,  but  in  its  practical  effect,  and  aside  from  all  technicalities, 
it  was  a  partnership.  Under  that  partnership  they  commenced 
doing  their  business,  and  after  some  years  the  state,  fearing 
what  might  be  the  result  of  such  an  agreement,  by  law  declared 
any  such  agreement  to  be  invalid,  and  imposed  penalties  upon 
the  railroads  and  the  managers  of  railroads  who  should  enter 
into  any  such  agreement.  But  in  spite  of  all  that  legislation, 
the  Concord  Railroad  for  more  than  twenty  years  managed  to 
run  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence  Railroad. 

I  think  it  is  a  matter  that  is  obvious  to  any  man’s  compre¬ 
hension,  that  if  I  own  a  majority  of  the  stock  of  two  corpora¬ 
tions,  no  legislation  can  make  those  corporations  quarrel ;  and  if 
a  half  dozen  men  own  a  controlling  interest  in  two  corporations, 
you  cannot  make  those  two  corporations  quarrel.  A  man  will 


7 


not  quarrel  with  himself.  That  was  what  was  the  trouble  with 
the  Concord  and  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence.  They  were 
owned  practically  and  substantially  by  the  same  interests ;  and 
if  the  present  management  of  the  Concord  road  had  not  for¬ 
gotten  that  fact,  they  would  never  have  lost  control  of  the  Man¬ 
chester  &  Lawrence  road  as  they  did  this  present  season.  It 
was  when  there  became  friction  between  the  Manchester  & 
Lawrence  and  the  Concord  that  the  possibility  of  what  has 
taken  place  occurred.  Now,  in  the  same  way  in  which  the  Con¬ 
cord  run  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence,  it  is  possible,  and  to  my 
mind  it  is  probable,  that  the  Canadian  Pacific  will  attempt  to 
run  these  roads  in  New  Hampshire.  They  want  this  Merri¬ 
mack  Valley  line  because  it  is  the  best  route  by  which  they  can 
connect  Montreal  and  Boston.  They  want  the  Boston  & 
Maine  road,  because  bv  this  lease  of  the  Boston  &  Lowell 
it  has  practically  obtained  all  the  terminal  facilities  that  can  be 
obtained  in  that  part  of  the  port  of  Boston  which  the  Canadian 
Pacific  would  naturally  most  desire  to  get.  I  do  not  believe 
the  provisions  which  these  two  bills  contain  are  of  any  more 
effect  in  preventing  that  than  would  be  a  handful  of  dry  forest 
leaves  to  stop  the  mountain  torrent.  Looking  at  this  as  be¬ 
ing  the  great  danger  which  is  before  us  to-day,  I  am  still  more 
troubled  in  the  consideration  of  these  measures.  And  while 
I  say  this  in  regard  to  these  two  bills,  if  there  is  no  bill  at  all  of 
course  it  is  even  worse.  If  we  do  nothing,  we  render  the  matter 
so  much  the  easier  for  the  Canadian  Pacific  to  acquire  what  they 
may  wish.  With  roads  broken  up,  disconnected,  disjointed 
with  the  upper  roads,  themselves  going  rapidly  out  of  repair, 
feeling  the  need  of  somebody  to  take  them,  the  chances  of  the 
Canadian  Pacific  are  greater  than  they  would  be  if  we  passed 
either  of  the  two  bills  now  before  us.  Therefore  I  see  a  dan¬ 
ger  in  either  way  that  we  look  at  this  question,  and  wish  we 
might  find  the  wisdom  to  devise  proper  safeguards,  which  I  do 
not  find  in  either  of  these  bills. 

There  have  been  many  things  said  with  regard  to  the  leg¬ 
islation  of  four  years  ago,  sometimes  called  the  Colby  act, 
and  the  railroad  commission  bill,  that  were  passed  together: 
they  were  parts  of  the  same  legislation.  If  you  will  bear  with 
me,  I  would  like  to  go  over  a  little  of  the  history  of  that  time. 


8 


I  was  a  member  of  that  legislature.  I  knew  something  of  the 
negotiations  while  they  were  in  progress,  as  well  as  of  what  was 
taking  place  in  the  legislature  itself  and  before  its  committee. 
The  policy  of  New  Hampshire  up  to  that  time  had  been  to  have 
railroad  corporations  not  too  large  to  be  easily  managed  by  the 
legislature  ;  to  keep  them  from  uniting ;  to  keep  them  con¬ 
stantly  under  the  supervision  of  the  legislature  by  requiring 
them  at  short  periods  to  come  again  under  its  care.  That  is  to 
say,  short  leases  and  small  roads  was  the  policy  of  New  Hamp¬ 
shire.  It  was  a  policy  that  left  the  control  of  the  roads  very 
much  in  the  power  of  the  state.  To  my  mind,  it  was  the  best 
and  safest  policy.  I  thought  so  then,  and  I  think  so  now.  I 
opposed  the  Colby  bill  for  that  reason  ;  and  if  to-day  we  were  in 
the  same  position  we  were  in  four  years  ago,  I  would  op¬ 
pose  any  legislation  that  looked  to  the  consolidation  of  roads  — 
not,  mind  you,  that  I  feared  for  the  business  interests  of  the 
community,  that  they  would  be  improperly  treated,  because  I 
think  there  never  will  be  any  difficulty  on  that  subject.  I  be¬ 
lieve  we  shall  find  in  that  way  everything  will  be  right, — that 
we  shall  be  as  well  treated,  and  better  treated  than  we  should  be 
without  consolidation  ;  but  I  feared  the  political  p<yver  that 
would  arise  from  it,  and  I  fear  it  still.  I  approached  four 
years  ago  the  discussion  of  these  questions  with  this  feeling, 
and  opposed  this  bill,  and  it  was  adopted  in  spite  of  the  oppo¬ 
sition  that  I  made.  That  bill  proposed  to  make  a  revolu¬ 
tion  in  the  whole  political  management  of  New  Hampshire  rail¬ 
roads.  It  proposed,  instead  of  placing  the  railroads  under  the 
care  of  the  legislature,  in  the  sense  that  they  were  to  continue 
every  few  years  to  come  back  under  its  care,  and  getting  some¬ 
thing  from  it,  to  put  them  under  the  care  of  railroad  commis¬ 
sioners  and  to  allow  unlimited  consolidation.  I  remember  very 
distinctly  saying  in  this  house  then,  that  under  the  provisions  of 
that  bill  it  might  be  that  all  the  railroads  in  the  state  might  be 
united  in  one  corporation  ;  and  the  onl}7  answer  that  was  made 
was,  in  substance,  “Well,  xvliat  of  it  V ’  That  is  to  say,  both 
the  parties  who  were  concerned  in  it  deemed  the  possibility  so 
remote  that  they  did  not  think  it  a  matter  worthy  of  considera¬ 
tion.  Now  I  deem  even  remote  chances  as  matters  worthy 
of  consideration.  It  seemed  to  me  then  that  there  was  a  dan- 


9 


ger  that  the  railroads  of  New  Hampshire  might  be  consoli¬ 
dated,  and  then  it  would  be  dangerous.  At  least,  it  was  a 
matter  that  the  house  might  well  consider.  I  think  we  know 
to-day  that  mv  fears  in  that  regard  were  not  altogether 
groundless  ;  but  it  shows  what  was  the  feeling  and  temper  of 
that  legislature,  that,  although  the  suggestion  was  made,  no 
means  were  proposed  which  would  have  prevented  anything  of 
that  kind. 

Certain  railroads  promoted  a  general  law.  I  presume  they 
thought  a  general  law  would  answer  the  purpose  they  had 
in  view  as  well  as  special  statutes  would,  and  that  it  might 
be  useful  to  them  in  future  time  ;  but  we  are  not,  as  I  think, 
and  as  has  been  too  much  argued  during  this  session  of  the  legis- 
ture,  to  look  to  what  the  promoters  of  a  measure  had  in  view 
for  the  purpose  of  finding  out  what  that  measure  itself  means. 
As  lawyers,  I  think  every  member  of  the  bar  in  the  house  will 
agree  that  this  is  not  the  way  courts  ever  would  undertake 
to  construe  any  statute,  and  particularly  they  would  not  attempt 
to  look  at  what  the  opposers  of  a  particular  measure  declared 
might  be  its  operation,  as  a  reason  why  the  law  was  passed. 
That  you  might  say  that  the  promoters  of  the  measure  were 
telling  what  its  actual  intention  was  might  have  some  plausi¬ 
bility,  but  when  it  is  argued  to  you  that  the  gentlemen  who  op¬ 
posed  the  measure  at  that  time  are  the  men  you  are  to  go  to  to 
find  out  what  the  measure  meant,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  entirely 
wise  and  just.  By  this  measure  it  was  the  intention  unques¬ 
tionably  of  its  promoters  that  the  railroads  here  in  the  central 
part  of  the  state,  what  have  been  sometimes  called  the  Merri¬ 
mack  Valley  system,  might  be  united — the  Concord,  the  North¬ 
ern,  and  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal,  with  their  branches  ; 
and  that  the  Eastern  and  the  Boston  &  Maine,  with  their  branch¬ 
es,  were  to  form  another  connection.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that 
that  was  what  these  promoters  desired  themselves.  It  was  what 
they  promoted  the  bill  for.  But  I  do  not  think  we  are  to  look 
there  to  find  out  what  the  purpose  of  the  bill  is.  The  purpose 
of  the  legislature  might  be  entirely  different  from  that  of  the 
promoters  of  the  bill ;  and  in  any  case,  when  a  general  law  has 
been  promoted,  you  are  not  to  look  simply  at  that,  and  limit 
that  general  law  to  what  the  desires  of  its  promoters  were. 


10 


In  addition  to  that,  the  question  has  been  raised  with 
regard  to  the  condition  of  the  Boston  &  Lowell  in  this  matter. 
It  has  been  argued  that  the  Boston  &  Lowell  road  are  a 
foreign  corporation,  which  is  undoubtedly  true.  It  has  been 
argued  that  they  were  opponents  of  the  Colby  bill,  which  is  also 
true  ;  and  it  has  therefore  been  argued  that  it  could  not  have 
been  intended  that  the  Boston  &  Lowell  were  to  lease  railroads 
in  New  Hampshire.  In  the  original  draft,  the  first  draft  of 
the  Colby1  bill,  the  Boston  &  Lowell  road  were  not  alluded  to. 
In  all  the  subsequent  drafts,  and  there  were  several  of  them 
before  we  got  one  that  was  final,  there  is  this  provision,  that 
roads  which  were  chartered  by  any  other  state,  and  which  were 
operating  roads  in  New  Hampshire  (I  may  not  quote  exactly, 
but  that  is  the  substance  of  it),  should  be  authorized  to  lease 
railroads  in  New  Hampshire  as  New  Hampshire  roads  were 
authorized  to  do.  The  Boston  &  Lowell  at  that  time  were 
operating  the  Nashua  &  Lowell,  the  Wilton,  the  Peterborough, 
and  the  Manchester  &  Keene,  making  one  line  from  Boston  to 
Keene.  There  is  no  doubt  about  the  fact  that  they  were  actually 
operating  them,  but  it  is  argued  that  the  law  meant  not  only  opera¬ 
ting  them,  but  operating  them  legally.  There  is  no  doubt  that, 
whether  the  leases  were  legal  or  not,  they  were  operating  the  Man¬ 
chester  &  Keene  under  a  special  act  of  the  legislature  which  au¬ 
thorized  them  to  purchase  a  certain  interest  in  it,  and  under  that 
act  they  did  purchase  it,  and  their  legal  operation  of  the  Manches¬ 
ter  &  Keene  road  cannot  be  denied  or  disputed.  It  was  intended, 
in  my  judgment,  to  apply  to  the  Boston  &  Lowell  road,  because 
it  was  intended  that  the  Boston  &  Lowell  should  consolidate 
that  whole  line  from  Boston  to  Keene.  It  was  deemed  better, 
instead  of  ratifying  the  leases  that  then  existed,  which  were 
under  the  old  New  Hampshire  wav  of  doing  these  things, 
that  they  should  conform  to  the  new  system  which  the  Colby 
bill  introduced,  and  it  was  for  that  purpose  that  the  old  leases 
were  not  ratified  ;  but  this  provision  authorizing  this  leasing  was 
put  in  that  consolidation  might  be  effected. 

If  you  look  further,  to  what  roads  could  this  have  applied  if 
it  did  not  apply  to  the  Boston  &  Lowell  ?  Did  it  apply  to  the  East¬ 
ern?  They  were  a  foreign  corporation.  They  were  operating  rail¬ 
roads  in  New  Hampshire,  but  they  had  already  leased  themselves  to 


11 


the  Boston  &  Maine,  and  were  only  waiting  the  passage  of  that 
bill  that  they  might  ratify  the  leases.  It  could  not  then  have  been 
the  Eastern  that  was  intended.  The  Boston  &  Maine  were  a 
New  Hampshire  corporation.  It  could  not  have  been  intended 
for  them.  The  Fitchburg  operated  about  five  or  six  miles  in  New 
Hampshire,  from  the  state  line  to  Greenville,  but  the  Fitchburg 
Railroad  had  no  interest  in  New  Hampshire,  and  no  desire  to 
have  ;  and  so  far  were  they  from  understanding  they  were  in¬ 
cluded,  that  when  the  Cheshire  Railroad  came  here  this  year, 
they  came  asking  for  a  special  act,  that  they  might  do  what  they 
wanted  to  do.  The  Connecticut  River,  which  were  operating  the 
Ashuelot  and  the  Sullivan,  the  only  railroads  in  New  Hampshire 
that  they  could  possibly  have  in  New  Hampshire, — it  was  notin- 
tended  for  them.  The  Portland  &  Ogdensburgh  were  bankrupt. 
Thev  were  in  the  hands  of  a  receiver.  Thev  were  totallv  unable 
either  to  lease  any  other  road  or  be  leased  themselves.  Those  were 
the  only  foreign  corporations  that  were  operating  railroads  in 
New  Hampshire  except  the  Grand  Trunk,  which  was  not  chartered 
by  any  state,  but  by  the  Canadian  government.  None  of  these 
were  in  a  position  where  it  could  be  said  that  any  of  them  were 
intended  to  be  included  in  that  matter.  The  only  road  to 
which  it  could  apply  was  the  Boston  &  Lowell  road.  There¬ 
fore  I  think  there  can  be  but  very  little  doubt  that  the  Boston 
&  Lowell  was  intended. 

After  the  passage  of  this  bill,  the  Boston  &  Maine  and  the 
Eastern  promptly  ratified  their  leases.  Nobody  has  doubted, 
that  I  am  aware  of,  seriously,  from  that  time  to  this,  that  those 
leases  are  legal.  The  Boston  &  Lowell  in  a  similar  wav  formed 
new  leases,  and  ratified  them,  with  the  Nashua  &  Lowell,  the  Wil¬ 
ton,  and  the  Peterborough,  completing  that  line  of  road.  Unfor¬ 
tunately,  in  some  sense  of  the  word,  perhaps,  the  Concord  road 
were  notin  a  position  where  they  could  carry  out  the  understanding 
on  their  part  as  to  the  Merrimack  Valley  line  of  road.  Almost 
immediately  after  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature  of  that 
year,  the  supreme  court  decided  that  where  a  man  was  director 
in  two  different  roads,  he  could  not  act  on  any  contract  between 
those  two  roads.  The  good  sense  of  the  decision,  I  think,  will 
make  itself  manifest  and  apparent  to  everybody.  The  Concord 
road  stood  in  this  position  :  two  of  their  directors  were  Northern 


12 


Railroad  directors  ;  two  were  B.,  C.  &  M.  directors.  It  was  per¬ 
fects  apparent  that  a  majority  of  their  directors  being  so  situated, 
it  was  not  possible  for  the  Concord  to  make  a  lease  and  carry 
out  the  arrangements  which  were  intended  to  be  carried  out  by 
the  Colby  act.  They  found  themselves  unable  to  do  it.  The  result 
was  that  there  were  certain  changes  in  the  management  of  the 
road  ;  certain  directors  resigned,  and  certain  other  gentlemen  were 
elected  in  their  places,  including  one  who  for  his  steady  per¬ 
sistency,  for  his  great  force  of  character,  has  from  that  day  to 
this  been  the  dominant  influence  in  the  Concord  Railroad  direc¬ 
torship.  He  had  been  opposing  all  the  movements  of  the  Con¬ 
cord  road  direction,  including  this  Colby  act,  and  including  this 
project  of  consolidation  with  the  upper  roads.  It  is  not  to  be 
expected  that  his  election  to  a  place  on  the  board  of  directors 
would  at  once  change  his  mind.  It  became  necessary  that  he 
should  see  and  learn  about  the  operations  of  the  road  before  he 
could  be  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  union,  as  he  has  since 
been  convinced.  The  result  of  that  was,  the  Concord  road  were 
not  only  unable  but  unwilling  to  carry  out  the  arrangement  by 
which  the  Northern  and  the  Montreal  roads  were  to  be  leased  to 
them.  And  in  this  condition  of  things,  was  it  surprising,  was  it  not 
without  any  breach  of  faith  or  any  violation  of  the  law,  was  it  any¬ 
thing  but  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world,  that  these  two  roads 
looked  about  for  somebody  with  whom  they  could  combine,  and 
went  to  the  Boston  &  Lowell  and  were  leased  to  them?  It  seems 
to  me  that  it  was  the  very  thing  that  everybody  ought  to  have 
anticipated,  ought  to  have  seen  would  be  the  natural  result  of 
our  legislation  and  of  the  condition  in  which  the  Concord  Rail- 
road  found  themselves.  That  there  was  a  hope  and  a  belief  that 
the  result  would  finally  be  that  the  Concord  Railroad  would  be  ab¬ 
sorbed  in  the  same  combination  is  no  doubt  true,  just  as  it  is  no 
doubt  true  that  it  was  the  hope  of  the  Concord  Railroad  that  at 
the  time  when  the  Colby  bill  was  passed  their  union  with  the 
Northern  and  the  B.,  C.  &  M.  road  would  sooner  or  later  bring 
the  Lowell  into  the  combination.  There  is  no  doubt  of  that.  It 
was  in  the  minds  of  all  the  people  who  were  concerned  in  it  at 
that  time,  that  that  combination  should  extend  from  Boston  to 
the  limits  of  New  Hampshire,  at  least,  if  they  did  not  dream  of 
extending  it  further  ;  and  very  possibly  this  arrangement  might 


13 


have  been  brought  about  were  it  not  for  the  position  in  which  the 
Boston  &  Maine  found  themselves  placed.  Now  when  the  Boston 
&  Maine  ratified  the  lease  of  the  Eastern  road,  their  directors,  to 
my  knowledge,  were  advised  that  they  had  better  then  take  a 
lease  of  the  Boston  &  Lowell  road  ;  that  thev  would  soon  find 
that  the  business  they  were  doing  would  require  terminal  facili¬ 
ties  a  great  deal  larger  than  they  had  or  could  easily  acquire  ; 
that  the  Boston  &  Lowell  were  so  situated  with  reference  to 
their  territory  that  they  were  liable  to  continual  competition  and 
continual  interference  in  their  business  by  the  Boston  &  Lowell, 
and  that  to  get  their  business  into  the  shape  they  desired,  a 
lease  of  the  Lowell  would  be  necessar}7.  They  were  not  then 
prepared  for  it,  but  the  inevitable  logic  of  events  has  brought 
them  round  to  what  was  then  foreseen  would  necessarily  be  the 
result,  and  the  Boston  &  Maine  have  leased  the  Boston  &  Low¬ 
ell,  thus  acquiring  the  terminal  facilities  that  they  needed,  and 
they  are  relieved  from  the  dangers  of  competition,  which  to 
railroad  managers  of  course  are  apparent  enough.  Whether 
vou  look  at  it  in  that  wav  or  not,  that  is  the  wav  that  everv 
railroad  manager  necessarily  looks  at  competition. 

That  brings  us  up  to  the  commencement  of  the  present  ses¬ 
sion.  Not  long  before  we  came  here  the  court  had  decided 
that  the  Colby  bill  was  defective  in  that  it  had  not  provided 
for  the  protection  of  dissenting  stockholders.  Now  it  was  of 
course  expected  that  something  would  be  done  with  regard  to  that 
matter.  It  was  obvious — it  is  as  well  to  look  the  thing  squarely 
in  the  face  as  to  beat  about  the  bush — it  was  obvious  that  a 
modification  of  the  Colby  bill  which  should  cure  that  defect 
would  necessarily  bring  a  pressure  to  bear  upon  the  Concord 
road  which  it  would  probably  be  unable  to  resist,  and  that  prob¬ 
ably  the  result  of  it  would  be  a  combination  of  all  the  railroads 
under  the  Boston  &  Maine  charter.  The  Concord  Railroad  and 
their  friends,  and  no  doubt  a  great  many  other  citizens  of  the 
state,  looked  upon  that  with  a  great  deal  of  fear  and  disfavor, 
and  they  looked  to  see  in  what  way  they  conld  avoid  it.  The 
result  of  course  has  been  that  we  have  presented  to  us  finally 
from  the  committee  two  bills.  And  if  you  will  pardon  me  for  a 
moment,  I  would  like  to  say  a  little  with  regard  to  these  two 
bills.  I  think  we  have  not  said  enough  with  regard  to  the 

O  o 


14 


character  of  the  bills  themselves.  Now,  the  Hazen  bill  pro¬ 
poses  in  its  first  six  sections,  substantially,  simply  the  cure  of 
the  defect  which  the  court  found  in  the  Colby  bill ;  that  is,  it 
provides  means  bv  which  the  rights  of  the  disseuting  stock¬ 
holders  may  be  protected.  I  think  there  are  some  defects  in  it 
that  will  probably  require  amendment  should  the  bill  ever  get 
to  that  stage.  I  doubt  whether  either  of  these  two  bills  can  be 
made  operative  in  their  present  condition,  and  so  far,  I  think,  I 
should  want  certain  amendments,  but  the  first  six  sections  are 
given  entirely  to  that  purpose.  We  find  in  the  Atherton  bill  a 
somewhat  similar  provision,  only  it  is  not  worked  out  so  carefully 
or  so  fully  as  it  is  in  the  Hazen  bill.  The  seventh  section  declares 

that  the  Boston  &  Lowell  were  authorized  bv  the  Colbv  act  to 

»-  «/ 

lease  railroads  in  New  Hampshire.  That  is  the  substance  of  it. 
I  think  I  have  alreadv  argued  that  matter  sufficientlv.  I  think 
I  have  shown  you  why  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  that 
seventh  section  is  simply  declaratory,  that  it  makes  no  new  law, 
that  it  does  not  change  the  law  at  all,  but  only  leaves  it  as 
it  was. 

The  next  sections,  8,  9,  10,  and  11,  provide  for  a  means  by 
which  railroads  connecting  with  each  other  may  obtain  the  nec¬ 
essary  use  of  yards  and  depots  under  the  direction  of  the  rail¬ 
road  commissioners.  This  applies,  of  course,  being  a  general 
law,  to  all  cases  of  railroad  connections  everywhere  throughout 
the  state,  and  in  almost  every  great  town  there  is  more  than  one 
railroad  which  goes  there,  and  which  needs  more  or  less  ac¬ 
commodation.  Heretofore  there  has  been  little  or  no  diffi¬ 
culty  found  about  this  matter,  because  the  railroads  were  in 
a  condition  where,  although  they  might  be  inimical,  they  yet 
had  no  conflicting  rights  or  very  great  difficulty  in  adjusting 
these  relations.  But  the  result  of  the  purchase  of  the  Manches¬ 
ter  &  Lawrence  in  the  interest  of  the  Boston  &  Maine  last 
spring  has  changed  that  position  of  things  in  a  very  serious 
manner,  and  such  a  provision  as  is  contained  in  these  sections 
of  the  Hazen  bill,  it  seems  to  me,  is  of  the  highest  necessity. 
Should  the  Hazen  bill  fail  and  the  Atherton  bill  be  passed,  the 
similar  provision  in  that  bill  ought  to  be  so  far  extended  that  the 
remedy  in  such  case  should  be  obvious  and  distinct,  and  obviate 
unnecessarv  litigation.  The  condition  of  things  at  Manches- 


15 


ter  is  this :  For  thirty  years  or  thereabouts  these  two  rail- 
roads  have  been  run  together  under  the  management  of  the 
Concord  Railroad, — at  first  under  a  business  contract  that 
practically  amounted  to  a  partnership,  and,  since  the  passage  of 
the  anti-monopoly  act,  by  verbal  and  tacit  understandings.  The 
passenger  station  is  built  by  the  two  roads  jointly  upon  land 
belonging  to  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence  road.  The  freight 
station  is  upon  land,  if  I  am  correctly  informed,  that  was  pur¬ 
chased  bv  the  Concord  Railroad,  and  the  building  was  built  bv 
the  Concord  Railroad  with  funds  which  it  may  be  claimed  were 
the  joint  funds  of  the  two  corporations.  A  part  of  the  yard 
is  on  land  belonging  to  the  Concord  Railroad,  a  part  of  it  on 
land  belonging  to  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence  Railroad,  and  a 
part  of  it  to  both  the  Concord  and  the  Manchester  &  Lawrence, 
under  the  partnership  or  business  contract  that  existed  prior  to 
the  anti-monopoly  act.  I  believe  a  portion  of  it  belongs  to  the 
Concord  &  Portsmouth  Railroad,  and  a  portion  of  it  has  been 
purchased  since  by  funds  which,  it  may  be  claimed,  are  a  part 
of  the  joint  funds  of  the  Concord  and  the  Manchester  &  Law¬ 
rence  railroads.  Under  those  circumstances  it  is  next  to  im¬ 
possible  that  the  roads  can  be  run  in  harmony  over  the  iron 
that  is  laid  there,  without  somebody,  who  has  a  power  above  both 
corporations,  determines,  at  least  temporarily  and  until  their 
final  rights  can  be  ascertained  by  the  courts,  the  right  of  pass¬ 
ing  over  the  iron  and  making  the  necessary  connections.  It 
seems  to  me  that  our  friends  at  Manchester  will  find  themselves 
in  a  position  of  the  very  greatest  difficulty,  unless  some  such 
provisions  are  passed.  They  are  general  in  their  character, 
and  apply  not  only  to  that  but  to  every  other  part  of  the  state. 
They  will  be  needed  in  other  places,  as  well  as  there.  They 
will  facilitate  and  harmonize  the  action  of  the  railroads  in  all 
such  cases,  and  especially  in  those  cases  at  Manchester ;  and  it 
seems  to  me  that  we  should  be  derelict  in  our  duty  if  we  do  not 
provide  some  means  by  which  the  imminent  quarrel  between 
these  two  railroads  there  can  be  avoided. 

The  next  section  provides  for  enforcing  the  decrees  of  the 
railroad  commissioners.  I  think  that  you  will  be  satisfied,  upon 
reading  the  reports  of  the  commissioners,  that  some  such  action 
as  that  is  necessary  and  desirable,  and,  whether  the  one  or  the 


16 


other  bill  be  passed,  that  some  provision  like  this  should  be  in 
it.  It  then  provides  for  mileage  tickets,  provides  for  fares,  and 
provides  that  the  act  may  be  altered  or  repealed.  Now,  these 
are  the  provisions  of  this  bill.  They  are  all  general  in  their 
nature,  they  are  all  of  them  in  the  direction  of  carrying  out  the 
purpose  and  intent  of  the  Colby  bill,  and  supplying  the  defect 
that  time  and  the  court  have  shown  to  exist  in  it.  If  we  are  to 
have  any  general  railroad  law,  if  we  are  to  manage  our  railroads 
by  a  general  law  and  under  the  regulation  and  government  of 
the  railroad  commissioners,  which  the  gentleman  from  Nashua, 
in  his  eloquent  speech  upon  the  railroad  lobby  a  few  weeks  ago, 
said  was  the  best  and  most  proper  way  of  managing  railroads, — 
if  we  are  to  manage  them  in  that  way,  then  all  these  amend¬ 
ments  that  are  in  the  Hazen  bill  ought  in  substance  to  be 
adopted. 

Let  us  look  at  the  Atherton  bill,  and  see  a  little  about  the 
provisions  that  are  contained  in  it.  By  its  first  provision  it 
unites  the  Concord  and  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  rail¬ 
roads,  and  provides  for  their  absolute  union  instead  of  a  leasing. 
I  do  not  know  that  in  the  nature  of  things  there  is  anv  verv 
great  objection  to  that,  except  so  far  as  they  interfere  with  al¬ 
ready  acquired  rights  of  other  people.  Still  it  has  not  been  the 
policy  of  the  people  thus  far  to  consolidate  railroads  ;  and  when 
the  Colby  bill  was  first  reported  to  the  house  four  years  ago,  it 
contained  a  provision  authorizing  the  consolidation  of  railroads, 
which  was  modified  by  the  legislature  because  they  were  un¬ 
willing  to  allow  consolidation  of  corporate  franchises.  They 
were  willing  enough  to  vote  that  the  roads  might  be  leased,  but 
they  were  entirely  unwilling  that  there  should  be  a  consolida¬ 
tion  ;  and  therefore  this  is  not  in  accordance  with,  it  is  not  carry¬ 
ing  out  the  principles  of,  the  Colby  bill.  It  is  altogether  a  new 
departure  ;  and  it  may  very  well  be  doubted,  it  seems  to  me, 
whether  this  new  departure  is  wise. 

The  Concord  Railroad,  it  has  been  said,  are  rich  ;  they  are 
strong  ;  they  are  powerful ;  their  power  the  legislature  of  New 
Hampshire  have  had  for  many  years  opportunity  to  know.  They 
are  wealthy,  although  I  think  their  wealth  has  been  greatl}7  over¬ 
stated,  and  much  of  the  talk  that  has  been  made  here  there  can  be 
as  little  doubt  is  extravagant.  The  proposition  is,  that  the  Bos- 


17 


ton,  Concord  &  Montreal  road,  which  is  in  one  sense  of  the 
word  a  pauper,  which  is  unable  to  pay  dividends  upon  all  its 
stock,  shall  be  so  placed  that  there  shall  be  dividends  upon  this 
stock — the  old  and  new  stock — which  has  been  so  pitifully  talked 
of  in  this  discussion.  Here,  it  seems  to  me,  is  really  the  ex¬ 
planation  why  this  provision  was  made.  It  was  made,  not 
merely  that  they  might  be  allowed  to  lease,  not  merely  that 
some  provision  might  be  made  by  which  they  can  do  that — 
there  is  no  difficulty  about  that  at  all ;  with  the  present  man¬ 
agement  a  lease  could  have  been  easily  arranged  between 
them — but  it  is  that  in  some  way  the  stock  of  the  Montreal 
road,  the  old  and  the  new  stock,  may  be  made  to  pay  a  divi¬ 
dend,  and  that  those  gentlemen  who  have  been  buying  a  large 
proportion  of  that  stock  may  make  their  stock,  which  cost  them 
$15  and  $35  a  share,  worth  par  and  above.  It  seems  to  me 
that  that  is  really  at  the  bottom  of  this  whole  transaction.  It 
is  not  to  my  mind  desirable  that  we  should  do  this  thing. 

There  is  one  other  provision  in  the  eighth  section  of  the 
Atherton  bill  to  which  I  wish  to  call  your  attention.  It  has 
been  frequently  asserted  here  by  gentlemen  on  this  floor  that  by 
the  passage  of  the  Hazen  bill  we  should  be  placing  the  railroads 
of  New  Hampshire  out  of  our  control,  and  out  of  the  control  of 
our  successors  for  three  generations — nearly  a  hundred  years  ; 
that  there  would  be  no  limit ;  that  there  would  be  no  mode  by 
which  we  could  escape  from  the  condition  thus  produced; — and 
yet  this  very  Atherton  bill  contains  a  provision  which  proposes 
to  take  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  out  from  under  the  lease 
to  the  Lowell ;  this  very  bill  thus  points  out  a  way  by  which  we 
can  escape  from  the  very  great  danger  which  these  gentlemen 
seem  to  apprehend.  I  think  this  question,  as  a  matter  of  law, 
has  been  sufficiently  explained  to  you.  I  have  no  doubt  of  the 
authority  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  to  take  any  road  in 
New  Hampshire  under  this  right  of  eminent  domain,  to  run  it 
itself,  or  to  turn  it  over  to  the  care  of  another  corporation.  We 
settled  that  question  long  ago  with  regard  to  turnpikes  and  toll- 
bridges,  and  the  same  law  applies  to  railroads.  Of  course  the 
public  good  must  require  it,  because  we  have  no  right  to  take 
under  the  right  of  eminent  domain  except  for  the  public  good, 

and  it  is  also  true  that  we  must  pay  whatever  it  may  be  worth. 

2 


18 


All  that  is  provided  for,  I  believe,  in  this  bill,  and  probably 
sufficiently. 

The  next  provisions  in  this  Atherton  bill  are,  to  my  mind, 
even  more  objectionable.  They  provide  for  extensions  of 
railroads  from  Groveton  to  Colebrook  and  the  Canada  line  ; 
from  the  end  of  the  Whitefield  &  Jefferson  road, — not  the  Jef¬ 
fersonville  road,  as  it  is  printed. — from  the  end  of  the  White- 
field  &  Jefferson  road  to  Berlin,  and  indefinitely  beyond  up  into 
the  woods  to  nobody  knows  where  ;  and  other  branches,  includ¬ 
ing  the  Tilton  &  Belmont,  the  Lake  Shore,  and  any  other 
branch  of  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  that  mav  be  dreamed 
of  by  anybody — all  of  these  they  are  to  extend  ;  and  the  Upper 
Coos  road,  another  one  ;  and  they  may  guarantee  their  loans. 
They  may  themselves  take  stock,  buy  their  bonds,  and  borrow 
money  for  that  purpose.  Why,  gentlemen,  what  is  the  end  of 
all  this?  How  much  is  going  to  be  the  capital  stock  of  all 
these  roads?  How  much  are  going  to  be  the  bonds  of  these 
roads?  How  heavy  a  load  is  to  be  put  upon  the  Concord  road, 
upon  this  great  property,  this  valuable  property,  which  already, 
it  is  said,  pays  a  hundred  thousand  dollars  more  than  the  state 
allows  them  to  take  in  dividends  ?  To  what  extent  is  stock- water¬ 
ing  to  be  carried  on  under  this  operation  ?  It  seems  to  me  as 
if  they  had  left  open  here  an  unlimited  range  for  this  kind  of 
gambling,  which  has  made  so  many  fortunes  in  this  country,  and 
from  which  the  people  are  to  suffer  for  many  years.  It  seems 
to  me  that  these  provisions  are  of  the  most  dangerous  charac¬ 
ter  ;  that  they  are  liable  to  saddle  upon  the  business  of  New 
Hampshire,  and  upon  the  business  especially  of  this  part  of 
New  Hampshire,  a  load  which  will  be  felt  not  for  one,  or  two, 
but  for  unnumbered  generations. 

And  now  I  come  to  what  I  regard  as  one  of  the  most  serious 
propositions  in  the  whole  matter.  It  is  also  to  my  mind  an¬ 
other  very  great  danger.  I  fear  quite  as  much  as  anything  else 
for  the  public  integrity.  I  think  there  can  be  few  men  who 
have  the  interests  of  the  country  at  heart  but  must  have  seen 
the  rapid  growth  of  disregard  of  the  crime  of  bribery  as  it  has 
grown  up  throughout  the  country.  It  has  met  from  moralists 
at  all  times  more  or  less  denunciation  ;  and  an  eloquent  divine 
in  Boston,  only  last  Sunday,  took  occasion  to  make  his  sermon 


19 


on  that  very  subject, — and,  as  an  example  of  what  I  mean  and 
what  I  believe  to  exist  as  bribery,  he  said  that  if  President 
Cleveland  disregards  the  civil  service  law  and  appoints  gen¬ 
tlemen  to  office  in  the  hope  that  thereby  he  is  going  to  in¬ 
crease  his  own  chances  for  a  second  nomination,  he  is  guilty 
of  bribery.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  believe  that.  Granted  the 
premises,  which  I  do  not  undertake  to  assume  to  be  true, 
but  granted  his  premises  that  the  president  is  doing  that 
very  thing,  it  is  bribery.  The  English  courts,  which  have 
now  the  control  of  contested  election  cases  in  parliament,  have 
held  very  stringently  on  the  subject  of  bribery,  and  yet  in  direct 
accordance  with  the  decisions  of  the  courts  on  that  subject. 
They  have  held  that  even  the  employment  of  carriages  to  carry 
the  voters  to  the  polls  was  briberv.  Thev  have  held  that  when 
a  man  gave  something  to  the  fuel  society  of  the  town,  pending 
the  election,  that  that  was  bribery.  I  have  no  doubt  they 
would  hold  that  when,  in  order  that  the  river  and  harbor  bill 
might  be  passed  through  congress,  little  sops  were  given  to  the 
representatives  of  this  district  and  that  district  and  the  other 
district,  and  thereby  the  country  saddled  with  enormous  expense 
with  verv  little  benefit,  as  we  all  know  has  been  the  case,  that 
that  was  briberv  of  those  members  of  congress.  Now  I  believe 
that  this  Atherton  bill,  in  the  sense  that  I  have  spoken  of, 
bristles  all  over  with  bribery.  It  contains  provisions  for  build¬ 
ing  several  roads  in  various  parts  of  the  state  for  the  purpose 
of  catching  the  votes  of  the  citizens  there,  and  of  the  represent¬ 
atives  from  those  sections.  I  hold  that  when  any  member 
of  this  house  comes  here  and  says  that  he  votes  for  a  particular 
measure  because  he  expects  that  some  interest,  some  gain,  is 
coming  to  himself  or  to  his  immediate  locality  by  the  promise  of 
somebody  else  of  what  they  will  do,  that  he  comes  perilously 
near  the  offence  of  bribery.  I  know,  I  allow,  that  the  moral 
guilt  is  not  the  same  when  a  man  does  that  which  the  commu¬ 
nity  itself  has  learned  to  look  upon  as  innocent,  as  in  the  case 
when  the  guilt  of  the  act  is  distinctly  acknowledged.  Now, 
while  I  acknowledge  that  the  gentlemen,  probably  neither  of 
them,  carried  this  idea  of  bribery  in  their  minds  at  the  time, 
yet  still  here  is  the  fact  that  gentlemen  have  on  the  floor  of  this 
house  exhibited  bonds  which  they  say  have  been  given,  which 


20 


will  promote  the  interests  of  their  own  immediate  localities  ;  and 
I  say  that  when  they  do  that  they  come  perilously  near  this 
thing.  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  comes  naturally  from  those  prac¬ 
tices  of  which  I  have  spoken  in  congress,  and  in  municipal, 
state,  and  national  elections,  where  we  have  been  losing  our 
estimate  of  what  is  right  in  the  matter ;  but  it  also  comes  from 
the  fact  that  we  have  permitted  one  of  the  largest  of  our  public 
interests,  that  of  our  highways,  to  be  carried  on  by  corpora¬ 
tions  which  are  not  only  the  managers  of  a  public  trust,  but 
also  have  a  pecuniary  benefit  which  they  expect  to  gain  from  it, 
and  that  pecuniary  benefit  is  large  enough  in  almost  every  case 
entirely  to  blind  them  in  their  public  duty.  Now  we  have  seen, 
in  more  than  one  instance,  that  the  stock  of  a  railroad  has  been 
purchased  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  its  control ;  that  is  to 
say,  that  gentlemen,  in  order  that  they  may  become  trustees  of 
a  great  public  highway,  have  seen  fit  to  purchase  stock  for  that 
purpose,  that  is,  to  purchase  the  office  that  they  want  to  hold. 
I  remember  well,  that  in  a  case  in  which  this  whole  matter  came 
up,  of  the  purchase  of  stock  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  con¬ 
trol,  the  supreme  court  of  New  Hampshire,  in  delivering  their 
opinion  in  that  case,  closed  their  opinion  with  the  pregnant  re¬ 
mark  that  u  if  there  are  any  honest  stockholders  in  this  road,  if 
they  will  apply  to  the  court,  the  court  will  see  that  they  are 
amply  protected.’5  I  may  not  give  the  exact  quotation,  but  that 
was  the  substance  of  the  suggestion.  I  have  no  doubt  it  was 
in  the  mind  of  the  court  at  this  time  that  this  purchase  of  stock 
was  a  species  of  bribery,  a  species  of  the  purchase  of  public 
office  ;  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  if  in  every  such  case  a  proper 
application  is  made  by  the  stockholders  to  the  court,  the  court 
will  in  such  case  enjoin  the  holders  of  such  stock  from  voting 
upon  it.  One  of  the  greatest  safeguards  that  the  people  of  New 
Hampshire  have  is  in  the  integrity  of  its  court,  and  the  court 
have  both  the  will  and  the  power  to  protect  us  against  this  sort 
of  thing.  While  I  say  this,  I  do  not  want  to  be  understood  as 
impugning  personally  the  motives  of  any  member.  These 
things  have  gone  to  that  extent  that  we  do  not  any  of  us  realize 
how  near  we  are  getting  to  the  purchase  of  office,  and  to  the 
prostituting  of  our  influence  as  officers  to  our  own  personal  in¬ 
terest  ;  but  to  my  mind  it  is  time  that  we  should  all  understand 
that  this  is  the  true  nature  of  these  transactions. 


21 


Then  the  bill  goes  on  to  regulate  fares  and  freights,  and  then 
it  contains  two  other  provisions  :  that  no  foreign  railroad  corpo- 
atiou  shall  lease  roads  in  New  Hampshire.  It  is  a  modification 
of  the  Colby  bill,  in  substance  repealing  the  18th  section  of 
that  bill.  It  then  provides  that  railroads  that  are  united  must 
be  continuous  and  physically  connected  lines.  I  do  not  quite 
see  what  the  need  of  any  such  modification  of  the  Colby  bill  is. 
The  physical  connection  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  of  the 
slightest  consequence  in  the  matter,  nor  do  I  quite  like  the 
idea  that  roads  must  be  continuous  before  they  are  united. 
The  historv  of  railroad  consolidations  in  this  countrv,  and  I 
think  the  same  thing  is  true  everywhere  else,  has  been,  speak¬ 
ing  in  a  business  point  of  view,  that  they  have  been  for  the  ben¬ 
efit  of  the  people,  no  matter  whether  they  were  competing  lines 
or  continuous  ;  that  if  you  take,  for  instance,  the  Old  Colony 
road  in  Massachusetts,  which  goes  round  Boston  almost,  many 
different  lines  have  been  consolidated.  Although  in  some  cases 
they  were  not  in  the  first  instance  physically  connected,  and  al¬ 
though  they  are  in  no  sense  continuous,  it  has  been  for  the  ben¬ 
efit  of  the’whole  people  who  are  served  by  them.  I  believe  that 
the  same  thing  will  be  found  true  everywhere.  I  know  that  it 
militates  against  what  is  thought  to  be  the  principle  of  competi¬ 
tion  :  and  a  great  many  people  have  the  idea  that  by  competition 
in  railroads  they  are  going  to  gain  something.  Now,  I  have  a 
word  or  two  to  say  in  regard  to  that  matter.  My  observation  of 
competition  between  railroads  is,  that  it  has  three  different 
stages.  In  the  first  place,  by  competition  fares  and  freights  of 
all  sorts  are  reduced  ;  all  sorts  of  facilities  are  afforded  ;  competi¬ 
tion  in  running  time  is  carried  on,  to  the  danger  of  the  public 
who  have  occasion  to  do  business  over  the  lines.  That  is  fol¬ 
lowed  almost  immediately  by  exhaustion  of  both  lines  ;  and  then 
a  pooling  arrangement  is  made  by  which  the  rates  are  raised  to 
a  higher  point  than  they  were  before,  and  there  results  a  period 
of  mutual  indifference  for  a  time  ;  that  is,  all  pooling  arrange¬ 
ments  are  made  temporarily.  After  they  have  expired,  there  is 
a  period  of  temporary  indifference  until  a  new  time  of  competi¬ 
tion  comesTound.  Now,  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  good  for  the 
business  of  the  community  that  they  should  have  that  sort  of 
competition  ;  nor  is  legitimate  business  promoted  by  it.  It  is 


22 


better  for  business  to  know  distinctly  what  it  is  to  expect,  and  to 
have  a  certain  fixed  line  which  it  is  to  follow.  The  expense  of 
doing  the  business  is  vastly  increased.  That  expense  has  got  to 
be  paid  by  the  people  who  do  the  business.  The  result  has  been 
that  every  consolidation  has  resulted  in  lower  rates,  and  in  better 
trains  and  better  facilities. 

Now,  not  to  weary  you,  for  I  am  already  taking  more  time 
than  I  expected,  I  wish  simply  to  state  the  conclusion  that  has 
come  into  my  mind  in  regard  to  this  matter.  There  are  three 
courses  we  may  pursue.  In  the  first  place,  we  may  indefinitely 
postpone  both  bills,  and  do  nothing.  I  have  some  reason  to 
suppose  that  there  are  some  gentlemen  in  the  house  who  think 
this  will  be  the  wiser  course.  I  do  not.  I  do  not  believe  that 
any  of  the  dangers  we  apprehend  can  be  avoided  in  that  way. 
I  believe  it  will  be  found  that  the  great  danger,  which  is  so  very 
pressing,  in  my  mind,  from  the  Canadian  Pacific,  will  be  in¬ 
creased  in  that  wav.  If  we  do  nothing  upon  this  question,  then 
all  this  time  that  we  have  spent,  now  exceeding  by  probably 
three  weeks  the  longest  duration  of  any  session  of  the  New 
Hampshire  legislature,  for  the  purpose  of  settling  this  ques¬ 
tion,  will  be  lost.  This  railroad  question  will  come  into  the 
political  discussions  of  the  next  year,  and  in  all  the  caucuses 
the  question  of  a  man’s  position  in  regard  to  this  question  is  to 
be  one  of  the  controlling  elements.  In  every  caucus  and  in 
every  convention  it  is  going  to  disturb,  in  many  ways  that  none 
of  us  can  now  foresee,  the  result  of  that  election.  We  cannot 
afford  to  throw  such  a  disturbing  influence  into  the  campaign. 
In  the  next  place,  our  successors  will  have  the  same  lobby  that 
we  have  had  during  the  session  ;  and  I  think  that  every  member 
of  this  house  must  by  this  time  be  convinced  that  the  demoral¬ 
izing  influence  of  such  a  lobby  upon  the  house  and  upon  the 
state  is  too  great  to  render  it  desirable  that  we  should  have  it 
here  again.  And  to  my  mind,  even  more  serious  than  these  is 
the  fact  that  the  upper  roads  are  in  a  bad  physical  condition, 
owing  to  the  fact  that,  for  three  years  now,  who  is  to  own  them, 
who  is  to  run  them,  has  been  a  matter  of  doubt.  They  have 
been  simply  patched  up  from  time  to  time,  in  order  that  they 
might  be  run  for  a  few  years,  and  two  years  more  of  similar 
neglect  will  render  those  roads  dangerous.  With  the  uncer- 


23 


tainty  as  to  what  the  next  legislature  will  do,  you  cannot  expect 
any  road  to  furnish  the  money  that  will  put  those  roads  in  a 
proper  condition.  In  order  that  they  may  be  placed  in  such 
condition  that  the  business  of  the  state  can  be  transacted  as  it 
should  be,  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  do  something  at  this 
time.  We  have  no  right  to  refuse  to  do  anything  with  regard 
to  this  matter.  It  is  our  duty  to  do  something. 

Shall  we  pass  the  Atherton  bill?  What  will  be  its  effect? 
Its  effect  will  be,  if  it  succeeds,  and  it  may  be  made  to  succeed, 
to  create  two  powerful  railroads  in  New  Hampshire,  intensely 
hostile  and  inimical  to  each  other,  who  will  come  before  every 
legislature,  who  will  be  pressing  every  election  with  their  quar¬ 
rels.  Whatever  may  be  the  benefit  that  might  be  derived  from 
this  bill,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  great  danger  of  this  continual 
fight  between  them  vastly  outweighs  it.  And  for  that  reason, 
and  for  the  objection  I  have  already  mentioned,  I  do  not  think 
that  I  can  support  the  Atherton  bill.  I  was,  at  the  beginning 
of  the  session,  inclined  to  hope  that  I  might  be  able  to  support 
something  in  that  direction  ;  and  it  was  not  until  it  began  to  de¬ 
velop,  and  I  began  to  watch  that  development,  that  I  perceived 
nothing  of  that  kind  could  be  done  in  the  interests  of  the  people 
of  New  Hampshire  and  of  the  whole  state.  I  think  you  must 
have  seen,  from  what  I  have  previously  said,  that  the  result  of 
the  whole  thing  has  been  to  bring  me  round  to  the  necessary 
conclusion  that  the  interest  of  the  people  of  New  Hampshire, 
of  the  whole  state,  is  in  favor  of  the  passage  at  this  time  of  the 
Hazen  bill,  after  it  shall  have  been  modified  in  some  important 
particulars.  [Applause.] 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  here  with  regard  to  the  love  and 
affection  which  gentlemen  have  toward  the  state  of  New  Hamp¬ 
shire.  I  am  glad  to  hear  that  all  of  New  Hampshire’s  sons, 
whether  natural  or  adopted,  have  that  feeling.  I  am  proud  to 
believe  that  there  is  no  man  in  the  state  who  is  not  proud 
of  her,  and  proud  of  her  history.  There  is  no  man  who  lives 
here  more  proud  of  her  than  I  am  ;  and  I  trust  that  whatever 
we  shall  do  will  be  done  with  a  sole  view  to  the  interests  and 
the  happiness  of  the  people  of  New  Hampshire. 


* 


\ 


I 


